OCR Text |
Show THE POLICY OF HONOR." W e find in the current number of Ilurper's Weekly this eurlouel. twisted twist-ed view of the Cuban sugar duty re. ductlon In reference to Its effect upon our own production of beet sugai The most important development of the ik i"1 ."i?"0,""1 .'fl'ths Is the ul"e made b the r.epuld can leaders of the House with the President on th" Cuban S!!ill0Il n,e a"Sl th"' apparently belna In itiguramd. throuah i public heaiTng to reach i conciTi.lon oh th, pioposftlon to reduce duties on Cuban products was suddenly stopped The Onord bad made so deep an Impression on the llepubllian mem! era of Congress that thn into had turned and for tho moment ai kiisi tne pollcv of honor was defeated This result ha,i been dev-5l.'i'-0?,Jl!Uh1bi' uln he merlcan farmer as th st ilklug horse Of course. Amerl.nn farmers as r he.d have eonS Paiatlv.l llitl Interest In the question alttu igh the might have If the r.dic. turn of .lutv on Cuban sugar would leal.i bring down us It probably would not the ni Ice of sugar which they consume rtio faimers of a few Western States who posufM beet patches doubtless think that they are concerned althoui.li the real bemileUrles of the sugar tariff are Mr OMiard und his retlnlng Interests and he unfortunately t r his pr sent innlerthn has In conjun tlon with Mr HiMrd Cutting admitted that his bust ness will b protltabl even If Cibm s hai be mada free, Nolwiifcstanduig this. tho r lining interests pcisuidod the lie. publl m 1 icrs umonr the onverts be Ing Si iker II tnluaoii himself that th Irs w i tho wi i th farm, r So that now lh quiatlm Is Are OU going go-ing to txmlit i utm it the exifnse of the agricultural Interests? The Itern notion of "a policy of honor Is singular Mr Clcvelindap-tdlid Clcvelindap-tdlid the phrase to his programme of In caking down our manufacturing Industries In-dustries and building up those of England Eng-land He applied It again in this as sault upon our beet sugar industries, and Harpers Weekly follows him In It The argument Is that as we fred Cuba from Intolerable oppressions we must now not unly support her sugtu planters at our own expense, but at tho peril of exterminating a thrifty nnd growing industry of oui own, Into which hundieds of thousands of dollars dol-lars have been put, In the faith of the stability of our tariff laws In order or-der lo gild tho pill, the Hastern poll-tldans poll-tldans steak vaguely ot a reduction of the price ot sugar to our consumers But Henry O lluvomeer. president of the sugar trust, has said leceutly (we quote from the American Heonomlst) that 'Any reduction In tho tariff would accrue entirely to the Interests of the Cuban planters, and would not be re-Heeled re-Heeled In any lower prices of Kilned sugar in this country The effect then would bo wholly adverse to this etiuntr. without the slightest compensator compen-sator advantage Hut who are those Cuban plantera who would he helped'' The are practically the Havemcyer sugar trust That trust owns large sugar plantations in Cuba, it has other oth-er largo areas In pawn It would control con-trol the output of all the remainder by virtue of Its being tho only buyer of the raw sugar produced on them The Independent sugai planters of Cubi would bo In the same boat as trio American consumers of sugar, they would get no benefit whatever from tho reduction In tariff rate The whole plea In thelt behalf Is a shim It means the sugar trust every time that any one talks ot the help that a reduced tariff on sugir would be to Cuban planters oi to Cub t The trust has the onl rellnerleB, Cuban plant-eis plant-eis have none their product being ex-elusive! ex-elusive! ciude Biigir It Is perfectly evident to any one knowing the facts, and who will give them n moment's consideration, tint the fncts hero stated stat-ed must govern, and that there Is no real relief to Cuba In the proposition proposi-tion Wh, therefore, should Americans Amer-icans consider it, antl especially why should an body consider that u 'poll-cy 'poll-cy of honor" requires us to add to the wealth ot the sugar trust, while benefiting none else, and by combiting man of our own people7 Why, again, should the refineries of Henry Oxnird be so much moro obnoxious than those of Henry llavemejer? Oxnard haa no monopoly of beet-sugar refin ing, but Hivemeyer has of the refining refin-ing of cane sugar The sugar from the I.ehl factory In this State, for example. ex-ample. Is puupon tho market Just as It comes from the plant, without going go-ing abroad lo he leflned It Is refined right here, nnd a most excellent product pro-duct It Is Why should there be an attempt to raise a false Issue of this kind agnlnst beet sugar, and ignore the reul Issue, the key to tho whole question, the lUlnlng of cane sugar1 lhe truth being that neither the American people nor th Cuban plant-eis plant-eis would derive any advantage from this clamor for reduction In the tariff tar-iff for the ostensible benefit of Cuban sugar, even If It weie granted, why keep up the false pre-tense, pre-tense, and above all, why attempt lo make odious the plain, common, sense position of the producers of beet-sugar beet-sugar In this country' |